but he made big news back in Iran where politicians were lining up to object to his perceived willingness to grant concessions to America.
During his annual visit, Ahmadi-nejad expressed an openness to resuming relations with Washington and a willingness to see a hotline set up between the Iranian and American navies. That was seen by many in Tehran as caving in to American pressures and conceding points without getting anything in return.
This year’s visit did not make anywhere near as much news in the American media as past visits have. This was Ahmadi-nejad’s seventh annual appearance. But the script has gotten to be decidedly old-hat—he comes, he rants, he generates opposition demos. It’s so 2005.
His UN speech this year was less anti-Israeli than usual and did not air any doubts about the Holocaust. But he did offer a warmed-over presentation of his theory that the attack on the World Trade Center was an American plot and not an Al-Qaeda plot.
That prompted a walkout from the General Assembly by the two junior US diplomats assigned to sit in the chamber for the start of Ahmadi-nejad’s speech. They were then followed by diplomats from 34 other countries, according to one diplomat keeping track: the 27 EU member states, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino (the three European mini-states), Australia, New Zealand, Macedonia and Somalia. Iran has described itself as very close to Somalia, but Somalia’s walkout suggests otherwise. Israel did not walk out because its diplomats never went into the chamber in the first place.
Ahmadi-nejad’s speech was essentially a screed against the major powers and appeared intended for an audience in the developing world. He assailed capitalism, the American crime of using 9/11 as a ploy for conquering other nations, Western support for Zionism and oppression of Palestinians, the expansion of nuclear arsenals among the major powers (although they have actually shrunk massively since 1990); the UN veto privilege of the great powers, and more.
It was a rhetorical tour de force—but it didn’t always link up with the truth. For example, at one point Ahmadi-nejad declared. “We have observed the regulations of he IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] more than our commitments.” That was a curious statement considering that it is publicly declared and oft-repeated Iranian policy to adhere strictly to Iran’s written commitments to the IAEA but not to do anything beyond that. The Islamic Republic has frequently denied IAEA requests by saying Iran is not required to do what the IAEA says it wants,
Ahmadi-nejad also gave a series of speeches and media interviews during his week in New York, as he always does. In doing so, he angered many back in Tehran by appearing to be too open to the United States. First off, the president welcomed the idea of setting up a hotline between the Iranian Navy and the US Fifth Fleet to try to avert any conflicts. “Any tool that can prevent clashes or potential conflict, we welcome that tool, “ he said at a news conference when asked about the idea of a hotline.
But he really didn’t stray far from the official line because he quickly added: “I think the long-term solution is for the foreign forces to leave the Persian Gulf. There is no need in the Persian Gulf for the presence of the NATO force. Nations of the region are fully capable of establishing and providing their own security.”
But Ali Fadavi, commander of the Pasdar maritime arm, had already rejected the hotline idea with studied hostility. “When we are in the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct contact with the United States,” he said. “In the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the presence of the United States in the Persian Gulf is illegitimate and makes no sense.” He did not explain how he rated Iran’s presence in the Gulf of Mexico as legal if America’s presence in the Persian Gulf was illegal. Both are international waters.
Fadavi said, “The Americans should make requests that have something to do with reality.” He said the Americans are afraid of the fact that Iran’s military capability has risen rapidly. “Their objectives are quite clear,” he said. “They only have one way to alleviate their concerns, which is withdrawing from the region.”
Actually, there is no US proposal for a hotline, although many in Iran seem to think there is. The Wall Street Journal reported two weeks ago that some American officials were thinking about proposing a hotline, but made clear no decision had been made. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared to give support to the idea last week. He expressed concern at the lack of contact with Iran. “Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, US officials could still talk with the Soviets,” he said.
Secondly, while in New York, Ahmadi-nejad suggested it might be a good idea for the United States and Iran to have diplomatic relations, a strange thing for him to say considering that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenehi has vetoed such relations. His comments simply gave his enemies another opportunity to slam him.
In one of his interviews, Ahmadi-nejad said, “We believe that the lack of a relationship is to the disadvantage of both countries and it is necessary that US officials change their attitude a little to solve problems.” Again, Ahmadi-nejad did not reverse policy totally, but it is not politic in Iran to speak favorably about re-establishing relations.
Majlis Deputy Ahmad Tavakkoli, a frequent critic of Ahmadi-nejad’s, said, “The approach of some is contrary to the interests of he country.”
Hardline Deputy Ali Motahari said, “Expressing an interest in resuming ties with America and saying in an interview that the lack of such relations is a loss for both countries is not appropriate.”
Other officials and the conservative media pointed out repeatedly that the issue of diplomatic relations with the United States is an issue exclusively for the Supreme Leader, not for Ahmadi-nejad.
In repeated interviews, Ahmadi-nejad asserted that “it was the American government that unilaterally severed relations,” thus putting the blame for the lack of relations on Washington. What he said was technically true, but ignored the fact that the US government did not kick out Iranian diplomats until April 1980, 5 1/2 months after the Iranian government had endorsed the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran and the imprisonment of its diplomats—thus effectively severing relations.
Ahmadi-nejad also asserted that the United States never accepted the Iranian revolution and always sought to overturn the revolutionary regime. This ignored the fact that Bruce Laingen, the last US charge d’affaires in Tehran, has said for decades that he was dispatched to Tehran after the revolution with instructions to make clear to the new government that Washington accepted the revolution as an established fact.
Ahmadi-nejad, ignoring the hostage episode, said Washington cut relations “to destroy the newly established system brought about by the Islamic revolution.”
In other interviews, Ahmadi-nejad complained that he had never received a reply to a letter he sent President Obama. What Obama did was bypass Ahmadi-nejad and write instead to Khamenehi, knowing that only Khamenehi had the authority on such matters as relations with the United States. Obama has sent at least two letters. Neither has been answered.
Ahmadi-nejad also said he was perfectly willing to halt all enrichment of uranium to 20 percent if the West just provided Iran with such enriched fuel for its Tehran medical reactor. But a week earlier, Ahmadi-nejad’s vice president in charge of the nuclear program, Fereydun Abbas-Davani, had said the issue was off the table and Iran would continue 20 percent enrichment without a pause. Ahmadi-nejad appeared unaware of what Abbas-Davani had said. When it was pointed out to him, he briefly stumbled but then repeated his offer to halt 20 percent enrichment if the West would provide the required fuel for the Tehran reactor.
Queried on the suppression of the post-election disorders, Ahmadi-nejad gave a new explanation of the death toll. He said 33 people were killed and that two-thirds of them were security forces and innocent bystanders while only one-third or 11 were protesters, “a very, very small minority.” The opposition says that more than 80 protesters were killed.
Oddly, for interviews with the American media, he asserted that the United States is not a democracy and that the American people are shut out of the government. As one element of proof, he said Americans were only allowed to vote for presidential candidates from two parties. Actually, there were six other candidates on the ballot in all 50 states in the last presidential election, but Ahmadi-nejad clearly did not understand that.
He also described the American courts as run by the White House. “Here [in the United States], the government can exert pressure on judges,” he said. “But in Iran, there is no such possibility because the Judiciary is completely independent.”
Such patently laughable assertions suggested that Ahmadi-nejad really wasn’t trying to speak to the American public, but simply trying to show the Iranian public back home that he was a powerful individual who could stand toe-to-toe with Americans and not be pushed around.
In the final sentence of his interview with The New York Times, he said, “I do not believe that you can gain this easy of an access and speak so easily, so at ease, with the president of the United States. But you can do that with the Iranian president. This is one of the differences between our two countries.”
In several interviews, Ahmadi-nejad asserted very firmly that he knew as an engineer that planes crashing into the World Trade towers could not bring the towers down. He said explosives had to have been planted inside the towers earlier in order to collapse the towers. “I can say with certainty, there must have been explosive material that was set off in sequence.” In his UN speech, he asked why no independent group was ever allowed to investigate what happened.
A six-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that extreme heat from the jetliner crashes into the twin towers caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures in the buildings’ structures until the upper floors collapsed, causing each lower floor to collapse in turn.
